For other readers - more than half of these are irrelevant.
Writing general purpose application code rarely involves thinking about implications of most of these (save for NAOT as of lately I suppose).
Writing systems C# involves additional learning curve, but if you are already familiar with C++, it comes down to understanding the correct mapping between features, learning strengths and weaknesses of the compiler and the GC and maybe doing a cursory disassembly check now and then, if you care about it.
Many of those keywords as you call it, are part of a technical interview in any .NET consulting shop worth their business.
And while I expect any junior not to know half of them, anyone claiming to be a senior better have an answer, regardless of what I throw at them.
Naturally I don't expect anyone versed in desktop frameworks to master backend and vice-versa, but they better know the bits that relate to desktop in that case, across the whole stack.
The original comment was about the divergence of the complexity of a language and the complexity of programs implemented in the language. I think the comment you replied to with all its keywords and jargon beautifully illustrated the point
No one of sane mind accesses even one tenth of these on a daily basis.
They simply do not matter. For example - CLS-compatiblity, seriously? I'd return the favour and ask the interviewer why they disagree with the .NET's team stance that this lost relevance in early .NET versions more than a decade ago.
There are main framework and features to be aware of, there are some that may be relevant to legacy codebases you must avoid like fire, and there are those to which the only appropriate response would be "this never existed, if it did, forget about it".
(to Pjmlp - please do not equate knowing the terms with understanding them, and stop bringing up whatever was left by wayside of history to people who should have no business being bothered by this nonsense, thank you)
For other readers - more than half of these are irrelevant.
Writing general purpose application code rarely involves thinking about implications of most of these (save for NAOT as of lately I suppose).
Writing systems C# involves additional learning curve, but if you are already familiar with C++, it comes down to understanding the correct mapping between features, learning strengths and weaknesses of the compiler and the GC and maybe doing a cursory disassembly check now and then, if you care about it.